The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, after the occurrence of the instant accident, proceeded more than 500 meters, and D, as the driver of the victimized vehicle, concealed the Defendant’s vehicle.

Accordingly, although new traffic risks and obstacles have occurred, the court below acquitted the violation of the Road Traffic Act (not after the accident). The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, the observation of protection, and each order to attend a lecture 40 hours, the alcohol treatment lectures, the compliance driving lectures) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Fact-finding assertion 1) Articles 148 and 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “Road Traffic Act”) provide that a driver, etc. shall promptly take necessary measures, such as removal of obstacles caused by traffic accidents, thereby ensuring safe and smooth traffic by preventing and removing traffic risks and obstacles, and does not provide for restoring physical damage to victims. In such cases, measures to be taken on the site shall be taken by the driver according to the circumstances at the scene of the accident, such as the details of the accident, the degree and degree of damage, and the degree of measures to be taken by the driver shall be taken to the extent ordinarily required in light of sound form (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do4936, Aug. 23, 2013). In light of the circumstances of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the Defendant necessary to take measures to ensure safe and smooth traffic by preventing and removing the traffic hazards and obstacles after the instant accident.

As it is difficult to view, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that the violation of the Road Traffic Act (not after the accident) was proven.

In short, the aforementioned charges were acquitted on the ground that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The records of this case.